Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling upholding a Tennessee ban on transgender medical treatments for adolescents. The ruling has major implications for pending transgender cases, particularly the concurrence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejecting the claim that transgender status qualifies as a group entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution. One of those cases just resulted in a major ruling in Boston against the move by the Trump Administration to restore the binary options of “male” and “female” sex designations on U.S. passports.
District Judge Julia Kobick’s ruling extended her earlier decision that the Trump Administration cannot limit Americans to male or female genders on passports. Judge Kobick ruled that the executive order by President Donald Trump reflects irrational animus toward transgender citizens and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution as well as federal statutory law. In reaching that conclusion, the court adopted a number of positions that go beyond existing precedent of the Supreme Court. Now, with the decision in United States v. Skrmetti, her analysis seems even more uncertain and challengeable.
United States passports historically required a designation of either “M” or “F.” However, in 1992, the government allowed people to submit evidence of surgical reassignment as proof of sex. In 2010, that option was changed to discard the required proof of surgical reassignment and instead allow a physician’s certification of appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.
Then, in 2022, President Joe Biden changed the passport application forms to include an “X” gender marker option in addition to “M” and “F.” It also added a checkbox to indicate a change in their gender. Id. The resulting changes impacted DS-11 (new passport), DS-82 (passport renewal), and DS-5504 (data correction, name change, and limited validity passport) in allowing an option “X.” However, those forms expired on April 30, 2025.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump reversed the Biden policy and issued Executive Order 14,168, declaring that “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”
The EO also provides that certain definitions “shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy.” Id. Those definitions include:
“Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.” . . .
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell. . . .
(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.
Notably, the EO directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “provide to the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in this order.” Id. at 8,616. HHS did so, Defining Sex, HHS (Defining Sex) (Feb. 19, 2025), https://perma.cc/9DNS-CHSZ, and concluded:
“Sex is a person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”
“Female is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova)”; and
“Male is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.”
Judge Kobick, however, agreed with the transgender plaintiffs that the return to the prior designation of only male and female options was discriminatory and arbitrary. She rejected the arguments of the Trump Administration that, if this matter is even reviewable, it should be reviewed under a rational basis test – the lowest standard of review in such cases. It noted that gender identity has never been found to be a suspect class by the Supreme Court. However, the court applied the intermediate test, requiring the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest.” It found that it failed this test despite the government arguing at length that the change is based on a need for uniformity and continuity in federal forms. The court found in her earlier April ruling that:
“Viewed as a whole, the language of the Executive Order is candid in its rejection of the identity of an entire group—transgender Americans—who have always existed and have long been recognized in, among other fields, law and the medical profession.”
In one of the more notable lines, Judge Kobick found that “[e]ven assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans.”
The court seemed to treat this as the balancing of interests between two parties. “Constitutional harm on the Executive Branch” sounds like a violation of Article II authority. The court is suggesting that, while this may violate Article II, it has an even greater impact on these individuals. The Administration cited cases like Gore v. Lee, 107 F.4th 548, 561 (6th Cir. 2024) that have recognized that the government has a legitimate interest “in maintaining a consistent, historical, and biologically based definition of sex.” See also Corbitt v. Sec’y of the Ala. Law Enf’t Agency, 115 F.4th 1335, 1348 (11th Cir. 2024) (recognizing a “State’s interest in ensuring consistency with the State’s existing requirements for amending a birth certificate” by “‘objectively defining sex’ for purposes of driver’s license designations”).
The court also brushes aside the prior precedent giving presidents great deference in matters related to foreign relations and entry into the United States.
The Supreme Court left room for possible challenges by transgender litigants. Chief Justice John Roberts does write that “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.” However, the Court found that there was no discrimination on the basis of transgender status and noted that “absent a showing that SB1’s prohibitions are pretexts designed to effect invidious discrimination against transgender individuals, the law does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”
Yet, the majority writes that “This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasisuspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status.” That is precisely what Judge Kobick did. In her concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directly rejected the claim in a blow to transgender litigants who might have hoped that she could be a swing vote. Barrett wrote that:
The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so.3 To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex.
…Nor is the transgender population a “discrete group,” as our cases require.
…The boundaries of the group, in other words, are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. Finally, holding that transgender people constitute a suspect class would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion.
…The conclusion that transgender individuals do not share the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of “a discrete group” is enough to demonstrate that transgender status does not define a suspect class.
…The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status. Rational-basis review applies, which means that courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.
While that was a concurrence with only Justice Thomas, it likely speaks to the view of a three or four other members on the Court. It makes the Boston opinion even more precarious as it goes forward on appeal.
#. The arguments failed to address perversions and sexuality.
It’s a correct opinion.
The other conclusion is certainly evidence of affirmative action.
News coming out.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2025/06/12/alabama-may-release-incriminating-documents-from-world-professional-association-for-transgender-health-which-made-dubious-claims-to-push-trans-treatments-for-kids/
“Gender-affirming care leads to permanent and disfiguring changes. To overcome parents’ natural reluctance to subject their kids to this suffering, doctors who do sex changes often falsely tell parents that they need to gender-transition their kid to keep them from committing suicide, even though that’s not true.”
“As health and science reporter Benjamin Ryan noted, medical authorities in “UK, Sweden, Finland, and now Norway as well,” have recommended against “prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to trans-identifying minors.” Yet, in America, gender clinics are giving teenagers double mastectomies and other sex-change operations in many states. The Biden administration promoted puberty blockers, even though the FDA said puberty blockers can cause brain swelling and permanent vision loss.”
In the discussion below I commented on the absurdity of ‘consensus science’ and enforced orthodoxy which we have seen disastrously implemented with ‘gender affirming’ care, Covid, Ivermectin, Remdesivir, global warming, net zero and many other things. It destroys true science.
Here is a very good comment on the same issue by Manhattan Contrarian:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-6-7-defund-the-nas
#. The concurrence of Barrett should be read to better understand.
Kagan thought a heightened scrutiny, understandably..
#. The dissent comes down to all gender, sex lines for any reason must be obliterated for
equality. Isn’t it marvelous women can now develop prostate cancer! Isn’t it marvelous gender lines are destroyed by the vanguard of
transgenders!
The idea of a doctor assigns gender at birth traces back to a French philosopher Foucault.
#. Overall the case is age or age of consent of the affected individual. It’s difficult to understand how a child can reject what he or she has never been.
No child has ever been an adult. Is there argument with that last sentence on its face? I don’t want to ___ . Fill in the blank.
Isn’t it really irrational? A biolofical male child says I want to grow up and be a woman with a BELIEF it’s completely possible by changing the secondary sexual characteristics. Experimental medical treatment is then imposed upon a child’s belief. To date the evidence is hit and miss.
The case is about age. The treatment is available to adults of both sexes equally. The case attempted to establish a quasi-class by its own language based on the word sex. It’s self defeating if there isn’t a known sex and sex classification becomes impossible ruling out sex discrimination. The equal rights protection doesn’t protect medical treatment as in pregnancy for one as a protected class. Medical treatment is part of equal protection.
Sorry, it’s convoluted and my personal language or expression is convoluted.
Not to worry, get hormones from California by mail. Hello, good-night.
Medical treatment is not part of equal protection as their are sex specific conditions and illnesses.
It’s mainly a matter of hair and boobs. Put on a big wig and falsies. Women do.
Done and thanks PT, I guess.
#. SOMEONE has to point out the language—> large reproductive cell AND small reproductive cell.
🤦♀️ 🤦♂️
It just isn’t the case the courts are looking for to establish a group and discrimination. People don’t like transgenders. They will discriminate and need to be “smoked out” in higher scrutiny.
Best wishes
Justice Thomas addresses sex discrimination in this case and the plainyiffs did not present a case for invidious sex discrimination. It’s helpful.
Kagan shoots back in a dissent in few paragraphs and thinks the case should be remand to smoke out invideous sex discrimination certain it’s there I presume. Can’t be proved with this case.
So it is.
I wonder if geduldig v. Aiello would hold up today.
#. Address discrimination whether it’s by birth defect, mental illness or immutable characteristics the brunt of the problem is disability. Disability prevents full participation in an economy. Money is very important as people seek contentment, or happiness or pleasure. In this sense that which prevents full participation leaving a person in futile struggle. Discrimination is a disability within a culture.
Transgenders do have a disorder and it’s a disability. Lgbt is a disability. It doesn’t matter for what reason full participation is denied the earning struggle is greater. It will always be even with laws that seek mediation and accommodation.
This case involves minors. It’s experimental and causes increased disabilities. It should not be an option. A minor has no earning power.
Males are classified as having Y chromosomes and females have no Y chromosomes. The absence of Y chromosomes designates the female.
The language used of the large reproductive cell and small reproductive cell is an absolute outrage. In hackneyed words, what could go wrong.
Doctors examine babies at birth counting toes and fingers, and genitals and if the visual examination is intact the child is male or female physically. If upon examination a birth defect is seen a doctor does further examination.
It’s the Y chromosome, stupid. It’s the earning power, stupid.
Thank you ,PT
Future generations are not going to understand the craze for children to be allowed to get themselves chemically and surgically sterilized, and receive cross sex hormones, in an attempt to approximate the appearance of the opposite gender. History will be appalled at the diverse cabal of Left wing government officials, the DOE, teachers union, schools across America, and the Democrat Party, who conditioned very young children into believing that gender was a state of mind that relied upon stereotypes, and they could be happier by changing their gender.
While it’s true that the Transgender movement began decades ago, with Dr Money’s infamous experiments a major component, less than a decade ago, people were not announcing pronouns or punishing women for objecting to males in the changing room or on their sports teams.
This was a fad, a craze, a moment of insanity, which is already ebbing.
I predict that in another decade, many people who today despise Riley Gaines for standing up for girls in sports, will claim that they, too, were resistance fighters. After WWII, everyone claimed to be in the resistance.
There has to be some element of why do men have nipples in this mess. Rose Montoya , trans female, displaying her bosom at the WH celebration just screamed men grow breasts. I’m a female except I lacked hormones insecure in their ultimate male-Ness. Sort of an exclamation of ultimate insecurity in a nightmare existence.
It just does. Why do I have nipples? Because I’m a woman with birth defects. We’re all women! There’s horror element in it. My op
Anonymous,
Here’s ChatGPT’s explanation as to why men have nipples. Honestly, I’ve always wondered this myself:
Great question — and it’s a classic example of how embryonic development follows a **shared biological blueprint** early on, regardless of sex.
### Why do males have nipples?
Because **nipples develop before sex differentiation occurs** — before the body “knows” whether the embryo is male or female.
—
### Here’s how it works:
#### ✅ **Weeks 4–6 of gestation:**
* All human embryos develop **nipples** as part of the **default body plan**.
* This happens **before** the **SRY gene** on the Y chromosome is activated in XY embryos.
#### 🧬 **Week 7 and onward:**
* If the embryo is **genetically male (XY)** and has a working **SRY gene**, then:
* Testes form and begin producing testosterone.
* Masculinization of other tissues begins (like genitalia and reproductive structures).
But by then, the **nipples are already formed** — and there’s no compelling reason (evolutionarily or developmentally) to undo them.
—
### Why don’t males just evolve without nipples?
Because **there’s no strong evolutionary pressure to eliminate them**:
* **Nipples don’t harm male survival or reproduction**, so natural selection hasn’t acted against them.
* Developmental biology tends to **re-use the same genetic blueprint** for both sexes, modifying it **only where necessary**. It’s more efficient than building two separate blueprints from scratch.
—
### So in short:
> **Males have nipples because all human embryos start with them before sex is determined.** Once formed, they’re simply retained because there’s no biological reason to remove or suppress them.
Let me know if you’d like to explore other vestigial traits like this — there are some fascinating examples!
The above explanation also makes a good argument, I believe, for intelligent design.
Or there was a time when 99 out of 100 babies born were females. Females produce babies once every 9 months. Males can father an entire planet in 9 months. The ratio speaks of it. Be fruitful and multiply on this vacant piece of real estate.
Most of these cases are simple perversions.